Tag Archives: Obama

Post navigation

Humans are a social species and are ingrained with a need to belong, and its one of the reasons Trumps campaign is so powerful. Belonging is essential to humanity. We crave the others companionship, and form nearly infinite groups to soothe that craving.

Churches, national citizenship, sports teams, law enforcement organizations, the brother hood of arms, PTA, trade organizations, political parties, unions, civic organizations, political organizations, fan clubs, and rod and gun clubs name but a few.

The importance of our need to belong cant be overstated. Democrat Politicians are masters at using the same desires to belong to divide the country. They try to push each American into ever-smaller groups and to pit those groups against each other. White vs black, haves vs have-nots, LBGT vs non-LGBT, law enforcement vs oppressed, religious vs secular, majority vs minority, working vs unemployed, business owners vs employees, citizens vs immigrant, and the list goes on.

Instead of using groups to divide, Trump is harnessing that need in his quest to become President by uniting Americans. His campaigns slogan is Make America Great Again. So far, its gotten him past a Republican Primary field as large and talented as any in history. Why does it resonate?

First, any American who loves this country wants it to be great.

Second, most Americans recognize that the Democrat Party has been assaulting our country’s greatness for many years. Barack Obama just accelerated that assault, on both social and international levels.

Third, any US citizen who identifies as an American first feels that powerful unifying identity to belong to a group, other Americans.

Fourth, just like NFL football fans unify around their teams draft picks, new star players, and fresh coaches because they want their teams to win, Americans who love our country want it to win. Donald Trump hits that note in his message. You will get tired of winning once Im President because we will win at everything.

I never thought that I’d see an American President see communism, socialism and capitalism on the same moral level. Mr. President, Communism doesn’t work anywhere! Unfortunately, Obama isn’t alone in the Democrat Party.

Conventional Wisdom is that Marco Rubio Crashed and Burned due to a repetitive statement at Saturday’s debate.

Marco Rubio got hammered in the media, and by many of the GOP candidates because of his poor debate performance Saturday. Criticism stems from his so-called robotic responses in the debate. Ironically, what Rubio said is exactly right, and its right on two levels. He said:

And let’s dispel once for once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing.

Rubio said essentially that same statement three more times. Admittedly, each one seemingly more out of place. The fourth time he said it was in response to a challenge by Governor Chris Christie that Marco doesn’t have the experience necessary to be president. Marco Rubio reverted back to that same comment:

I think anyone who believes Barack Obama isn’t doing what he’s doing on purpose doesn’t understand what were dealing with here.

As mentioned, there are two messages in that phrase.

The first message is precisely what Rubio stated.

Barack Obama meant the harm that he’s inflicted on America!

We all know that before he was elected Obama ran on fundamentally changing America. He had to dislike our country to feel compelled to fundamentally alter it. You have to fundamentally change it from something into something else. He ran on passingObama care. He wanted to do that. It was intentional. Hillary Clinton tried and couldn’t get it done. Bill Clinton tried and couldn’t did get it done. Barack Obama did. He’s done immense damage to our military. He’s done immense damage to our relationships with our allies. He’s elevated our enemies. He made a deal with Iran essentially insuring that they’re going to get a nuclear weapon. It’s only a matter of time. He’s done immeasurable damage from his executive orders, to the $10 trillion that he’s added to our national debt, to setting back race relations 50 years. These are leftist progressive ideological results, based upon clear intent as taught by radical leftist Saul Alinsky.

The second message in Rubio’s 4 statements must be inferred because unfortunately, to Marco Rubio’s detriment, he didn’t come out and state it. Perhaps he will in a future debate? Regardless, it’s absolutely as true as 1 above and would have rebutted Chris Christie’s attack that Rubio shouldn’t be president since he wasn’t a governor with executive experience.

Barack Obama was neither a governor nor an executive. He never formally led anything. He was barely a US senator for more than about 179 days before he started running for president. Despite no qualifications beyond being a “community organizer” Obama was wildly effective in instituting his radical agenda.

I think what Marco Rubio was trying to say is that he has every bit, if not more experience than Barack Obama had when he took the oath of office. He is every bit as committed ideologically in opposition to Obama, and will be just as effective in undoing the damage Obama inflicted and will put America back on the right path.

I’m not a Rubio supporter. He’s not my number one pick, but if it was a choice between Marco Rubio and any of the other establishment candidates it’s not even close.

On 7 January, 2014 President Obama made his now infamous and grossly inaccurate remark about the Islamic terrorist organization ISIS:

The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,

The Presidents JV team continues not only to expand its territory, recruiting, funding and brutality but also the length of its deadly reach. They blew up a Russian Airliner killing 244 people and just over a month later murdered 129 people in Paris. The President stated the day before the attack that his strategy had them contained. The problem here is two fold. First, no foreign policy expert from either party knows what President Obamas strategy is. Second, whatever the strategy is doing, it certainly isn’t containing ISIS.

Perhaps the Presidents foreign policy advisors are really the JV Team. In this case, to take from the President, they may be wearing Lakers uniforms, but that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant!

Does the President have his JV team scouring the internet for the reason ISIS attacked Paris. Im sure that if they scrub YouTube long enough the State Department can find the video responsible. If Obama can catch the disgusting video’s maker, and also put them in jail, maybe ISIS will live and let live…but of course they won’t!

The United States is a representative republic founded on the principle that multiple parties are essential to maintaining freedom, ensuring counterweights to oppression within our society. But what if one of our parties decided that they wanted to eliminate the other as a viable competitor. How would they do it? What would be their strategy to eliminate political competition within the United States and established a one party system? There are really only two options that would be viable within the context of the United States. Violent overthrow, the most commonly used method for power consolidation would never happen here, so it must be done in one of two other ways.

Option One: The most reasonable course of action, and the one that most Americans see occurring every day, would be to attempt to convince enough Americans of the power of that party’s ideas and its policies such that on a national, state and local level the ideas and policies of the opposition party would receive little support. There’s a clear historical ebb and flow in the United States that shifts power from party to party. At times Republicans at other times Democrats win the White House and/or the Congress only to lose that power at some point down the road. We’re talking about an option in which there is no down the road and one party maintains its power base in perpetuity. This is very hard to achieve, and unlikely to happen naturally, so it brings us to Option Two.

Option Two: The second option, unlike the first that is open to public debate and decisions, requires subterfuge and disguise in order to succeed. Rather than convincing the electorate of the power of the party’s ideas, this option involves making voters who oppose it irrelevant in the context of local state and national elections. It requires ensuring that more votes get cast for the party than would be cast against it at all levels. How?

1. Import voters who support it, adding them to the existing supporters who when aggregated outweigh and outvote the opposition party. Illegal immigration is one means to achieve this by bringing in millions of people from outside the country, using the power of the federal government, and taxpayer money, to disperse them throughout the country, in all states, counties and cities. The inevitable goal of this illegal immigrant seeding would be to make them American citizens and grant them the right to vote as soon as possible. These millions of voters would likely overwhelm the opposition party.

2. There is a potential however that this tactic alone might not work, and so a second parallel effort would seem like insurance. Another method of buying votes and ensuring long-term support would be to go to the prisons were large numbers of minorities are incarcerated. By using Presidential Pardons to free these prisoners and changing policy within the United States allow felons to vote once they’ve served their time, another guaranteed pool of supporting votes would be in hand.

3. The above two tactics would seem very viable means of ensuring electoral support, but why stop there? What if a party could also use the federal government to resettle vast numbers of voters (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) from party strongholds into opposition States, Counties and cities and in so doing swing the vote of those counties? Such a policy has never existed in this country in the past, the closest thing being forced busing. In this case it is meant as a long-term resettlement plan at the expense of the taxpayers in the counties into which minorities get moved.

4. A fourth tactic would be icing on the cake. A policy of enabling voter fraud, when exploited by a political party, would further tip the scales. Enabling this policy would require opposition to voter ID laws and the expansion of voting from election day to as many days leading up to the election as possible. It would also be important to expand absentee voting to allow party supporters the opportunities to multi-vote in every election.

Option Twowould be opposed if Americans knew it was underway, so it would require subterfuge, disguise and the cloaking of the policies within lofty terms of morality and fairness, Saul Alinsky 101. It would need cleverly tested statements such as voter ID laws disenfranchise the poor and are racist attempts to return to Jim Crow laws (instituted by Democrats by the way). Comments about expansion of voting opportunities enabling the maximum amount of participation in the democratic system, an essential element to any thriving democracy, would also certainly be thrown about. Resettling people from high-density minority areas to other parts of the country would be touted as righting discrimination and slavery. False statements made while stealing away America’s republic.

As far-fetched as this hypothetical Option Twois, I submit that it is in fact well underway. President Barack Obama and the Democrat party are using tactics mentioned above and probably many others to completely eliminate any viable GOP opposition. What would be the end state if they succeeded? What could possibly be the good that would come to America by creating a single party state? Given the progressive desire to force-feed their way of life and their way of thinking it’s clear what the intent is.

It’s also clear what must be done in opposition. The truth of this effort must be spread, understood and exposed to the light of day. It must be vehemently opposed by every freedom loving American. The rule of law must be upheld, and that starts with securing the border and enforcing America’s immigration laws. The Progressive coils must be unwound. We are at a crossroads America. The future of our Republic depends upon the actions of the American people. The 2016 presidential election is a GOP must win. Freedom is down to it’s last out, in the 9th inning. The future of our country and liberty depend upon it!

“The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy”.”

Given Alinsky’s own words, it isn’t hard to see why so many on the left considered then Senator Obama a savior. As a self-professed professional “community organizer”, an Alinsky acolyte, Obama was, in leftist circles, literally a “great creator”.

Alinsky teaches that there are three types/groups of people in the world (Alinsky’s Words in Bold and Italics):

– “The Have-Nots” Democrats exploit this group of Americans the most, advancing progressive policies designed to make and keep them dependent upon government. Minorities, women and children top their list.

– “The Have-a Little, Want-Mores” This group of Americans is basically the middle class.

– “The Haves” During the Obama administration Democrats branded these Americans as the “1%”. President Obama himself seems to believe that you become the 1% when your income grows to $250K/year. Most of the Democrat Political leadership (Clintons, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Deblasio, Gore, etc.) is extremely wealthy, as are their donors (George Soros, Hollywood Actors/Actresses/Directors, Union Bosses, etc.). As shown in my previous Alinsky post, there is no such thing as hypocrisy to Alinskyites.

Look for progressive policies couched in these three groups. It’s essential that they be pitted against one another, agitated, insulted, discredited and stirred up for the organizer to move his/her agenda. Division, not unity, is Alinsky’s calling card.

COMPROMISE: The clarion call of the progressive, and an essential component to a successful radical. How often do we hear politicians, in both parties, talking about compromise, as if that is the only thing that matters. Compromising where one’s principles must be abandoned, one’s security is dimished, or one’s country weakened, isn’t a good deal at all. Obama’s Iranian negotiations stand as a prime example.

“to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead.”

CONFLICT:

“Conflict is the essential core of a free and open society.” Alinsky teaches how to create it. Ferguson, MO is a case study in how it’s done, and how devastating its effects can be.

My final blog in this Alinsky series will contain the specific tactics Alinsky teaches organizers to employ.

Barack Obama is well know for having returned the honored bust of Winston Churchill to England, which was proudly displayed in the White House when he took office. Obama returned it because he is also known for disdaining colonialism, and that starts with England. He does not respect America’s past either, believing that our prosperity was illegitimate, gained by taking from smaller countries, which could not resist our pillaging ways.

It’s fascinating then to look at the way that the President is treating Israel and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. The President is using the very power that he despises from the colonial era to bully Israel into supporting Obama’s Iranian policy, and treaty negotiations. In this case, Israel’s very survival is at stake, where Obama is worried about padding his legacy.

Another ironic hypocrisy playing out involves President Obama’s Middle East philosophy. He would not allow American leadership in Libya, saying that it wasn’t our place in the world and that other countries should stand up. He insists that the Iraqis step forward and lead the defense of their country against ISIS, and yet when Israel tries to defend itself, he tells them to sit down and allow America to dictate the terms of Israel’s security.

President Obama largely gets a pass on his domestic policy. He receives near unlimited top cover from the American “Minion media” and pop culture who restate and reframe his mistakes, and distort legitimate policy and ideological criticism. Why are things so different on the foreign policy stage?

First, the fawning adulation President Obama receives from the domestic media is largely missing in the rest of the world. In fact it’s often the case that you’re better off following BBC reports to get accurate coverage of U.S. domestic news than reading the NY Times or watching CNNNBCCBSABC…

Second, President Obama and his foreign policy team are out classed. President Obama learned his leadership skills at ACORN. He’s up against people like Vladimir Putin who were schooled by the KGB, or the Iranian Ayatollahs. This is the equivalent of pitting a pop warner football team against the super bowl champions. President Obama has a ruthless streak, but it only comes out when dealing with the GOP, conservatives, TEA Party Patriots, police or America’s allies. The latest embarrassing example is the President’s bullying attacks on Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. When it come’s to America’s enemies, his ruthless streak is Missing In Action.

Third, President Obama’s domestic adversaries play by the rules. They obey the laws and adhere to basic rules of decorum. Obama is more and more unilaterally re-writing laws, ignoring those that he doesn’t like and using executive orders and regulations to create laws when he can’t get them through Congress. His latest power grabs include using the FCC to control the Internet, and ATF preparation to ban ammunition, in violation of the 2nd Amendment. America’s international adversaries don’t play by the rules, and it seems that Obama can’t keep up, anticipate or deal effectively as a result.

Progressivism is a kindred ideology to communism that seeks a lesser degree of the same, authoritarian government.

Speaker of the House John Boehner successfully maneuvered the CRAMNIBUS through the U.S. House. An argument could be made that it was a resounding tactical success. From a short-term perspective the speaker’s 1600-page bill funded most of the federal government through the end of September 2015. The House GOP leadership claims this is smart business because it allows them to focus on the Republican agenda when the new Congress is sworn in next month instead of having to go back and waste time and energy funding the government.

There’s no question that Boehner and the GOP establishment should soon have a majority in Congress within which to move their agenda. Tactical success, but will the CRAMNIBUS turn out to be a strategic blunder?

Americans gave the GOP a historic victory in November. Not a single Republican, including John Boehner, ran on a platform of furthering Barack Obama’s agenda. Even Democrats ran against Barack Obama and most attempted to distance themselves at every opportunity. The country is watching and they expect that the GOP is going to follow through with their campaign promises. The potential is very high that Boehner’s tactical victory with the CRAMNIBUS will disenfranchise GOP voters and convince them that they were duped. I’ve knocked on a lot of doors and I’ve heard a lot of people argue that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, Boehner’s proving them correct when he enlisted Barack Obama’s help to pass the CRAMNIBUS.

In addition, Republicans were elected to repeal Obama care. They were elected to stop what was known to be a pending constitution busting executive amnesty. The Republicans just completely funded Obama care and gave the President three months to institutionalize executive amnesty through CR funding for DHS. The excuses must stop. There can’t be any more cries from the GOP leadership that they don’t have enough votes in Congress, or that they don’t control the White House, or that they don’t have enough power to over ride a veto. These complaints ring hollow. The GOP will soon control both chambers in Congress. They’ll control the legislative body in Toto. We are all watching, and a failure now to live up to campaign promises will surely result in strategic failure in the 2016 election. For if Boehner proves that he’s as untrustworthy as he himself stated the President was, the good will shown the GOP will die. Failure in 2016 will doom the country to solidification of a big government, authoritarian, progressive Democrat agenda.

Today is a tragically sad day in American history. Tonight, the president violated his oath of office and threw this country into a constitutional crisis by legalizing at least 4.5 million illegal aliens. The truth, is that number will be far larger.

As part of the illegal amnesty, Obama will unilaterally allow the parents of children in this country illegally, and the children of parents who are in this country illegally, to also emigrate freely to America. Adding insult to injury, according to the State Department, taxpayers will even be on the hook to fly illegal immigrants into the US, from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Tonight, Obama spit in the eye of every poor sap who got in line, and followed the immigration laws passed to protect this country, the American people, our jobs and our way of life. In the process he devalued, yes devalued what it means to be an American citizen. Instead of it being something that people strive for, something that they work for, something that they dream for and that they follow our established laws for, he will give it away for nothing. In the process he will create a new lawless and dependent class within this country. The fallout will reverberate through our nation if not righted.

Perhaps the President’s efforts here are meant to block the repeal of Obama care by creating another firestorm crisis to overload the country’s ability to respond. Regardless of his desires or intent he knows that his actions are illegal. He’s clearly said so many times.

Now, the Republicans must govern. It’s time for them to take the Senate and with sound strategy march through a positive agenda for this country. They must unwind the destruction that’s been wrought, restore freedom, liberty and enable economic growth. It’s time to show leadership, and to reestablish the GOP’s credibility within the eyes of the American people.